So this means you are not going to explain how they know particles are in a state of superposition at exactly the moment they are not measuring them, or what?

Nope, that’s called hidden variable and that was disproven by the experiment — Darkneos

So they can rule out God as a hidden variable?

I think it’s more like you don’t understand what’s going on.

I told you what it means, doesn’t matter what you think it means that’s what it is. There is no contradiction — Darkneos

That's it? No explanation?

not really look, measurement in QM just means any interaction even with each other — Darkneos

No I think it's any interaction between the classical world and an isolated quanta. But to say apart from this interaction quanta is in multiple states is to say what you forbade yourself to do: tell something about the system without analyzing it. So it's self contradictory the way most physicists speak of this. They are philosophizing. Also, any "isolated" quanta is really always interacting with the whole system, so according to their philosophy everything must be only classical. A lot of what scientists say doesn't make any sense

How can we know the state of something apart from measurement?

Well that’s what they are. It’s not a matter of belief. That’s is until they interact with anything, at which point they settle — Darkneos

The whole "measurement problem" seems like a hoax. If it only settles when we look we have no idea what it would be (or is) if we didn't

Do you believe quantum particles can be in multiple statea at once, and why believe that?

It made me wonder if things like mass, and position are not truly the fundamental building blocks of existence, but are only derived phenomena from something even more fundamental — Brendan Golledge

How would we even be able to know what state or lack of states quanta has apart from measurement?

Problem with the Big Bang theory is, inability for explaining the perfect position, and workings of the matter, space and time in the Solar system — Corvus

The James Webb telescope findings might be saying you are correct. BB needs correcting but the details themselves don't matter much to philosophy

. If the BB had created the solar system as it is now, then it must be the most unbelievable magic ever created in the universe nothing short of the miracle act of some omnipotent being. But is it — Corvus

Reality itself could be the miracle, God itself could be the miracle.

Could time be potentiality, the possibility to be, endless possibility??

space and time within the universe can be motion, obviously.

The universe is in motion due to its own space and time — Darkneos

So space and time are not separate? And motions come from them? I've speculated on this forum that motion creates time as it moves through space so there is no need for a before the Big Bang being it's creater (motion) moves singularly at the moment of the universe's and time's first motion forward. It seems like something coming from nothing but it's not. The primordial singularity is it's own casuality

Action at a distance might be momentary separations of time from spacetime. If space only exists all things are connected instantly — jgill

Space only: nothing moves. But doesn't this at least imply eternal time, or "instant" as you say? Space seems to imply time therefore. But does time imply space? This leaves room for a reality of spirit. If time must exist yet space is contingent there seems to be something that connects them into actuality. Maybe time is a highest Platonic form, or space and time unite instantly like magnets. Idn

We are not denying the existence of the universe, but saying the end point of the universe is not known. It could be the proof or ground for the existence and validity of the concept of infinity i.e infinity exists, but the end of infinity is unknown.

Therefore we could deduce The Principle of Unknowability in existence i.e. there are entities which do exist for certain, but the details of the existence is unknown — Corvus

Yes i think there are infinite things we don't know about existence. We are connected by our bodies to the physical world and both are connected with God, Heavenly Father, or whatever you want to call it. I guess i'm agnostic about whether there is literally another consciousness beyond those in the physical universe. Descartes said his finite consciousness could never be infinite so he thought God must be *just there* and uncreated. But how can "the good" subsist without going from potential to actual? Where is will? Pure actuality seems so illogical to me. I would say we could be infinite consciousness and not be aware of it, and so there is no need to posit a Father who lives above us instead of saying we are one with Him, and there is the physical, the organic, and the spiritual, but we know too little on this side of death to say enough about it to satisfy everyone. "I and the Father are one. He who sees me [literally] sees the Father" (Jesus in Gospel of John). We are the essence of what we make ouselves. Sartre ect. Life is spirit

Under certain conditions, time separates from spacetime. Or not — jgill

If it wants to be eternal

If something is in motion, it requires space and time. If the universe is in motion, then which space and time is it in motion? Space and time within the universe cannot be motion in itself. They require space and time which is external and separate to themselves in order to be in motion. — Corvus

Very interesting. Peoples' thoughts starting changing when Galileo started saying things like dropping something on the moon should follow the same physics as here on earth.

it is possibly ubiquitous and eternal, i.e. a domain of the physical reality which doesn't require a first cause — jkop

Isn't this just a modern version of eternal "potential"?

You don't have to know everything to know something. You might know what a rock is but not a cloud, but at least you'd have some knowledge. You say your body is real but maybe not the clothes you wear, or maybe not your hair because it's not alive? Where do you think this line of questioning will lead you? Maybe you are on to something, but such doubt is not a destination

I asked what do you mean by real, when you say X is real. Is all that you see real? Is all that you know real? You think something is real, but later it turns out to be something else, or it disappears from your sight.

Is the universe real? What is the universe? Where does it start and end? If you don't know what universe is, then how do you know it is real — Corvus

You're the one questioning the world.. I'm saying that to doubt the sky is blue and the suns shines is a pointless exercise unless you get to a higher philosophical stage from the doubt. We all know what it MEANS to say your body is real

They aren't really philosophical categories, — Darkneos

Are you aware that John Bell was a super-determinist? If that is a philosophical position that is legit with observation, the idea of random vs determined can be seen then as philosophical categories. You can't do anything without philosphy in life. The old religious debates on predestination, likewise, had much in common with this random vs determined debate. Finally, Einstein has yet to be dethroned

They aren't really philosophical categories, they're pretty well defined TBH — Darkneos

Well then these scientific principles should be explained by science instead of being seen as philosophy. So how would they ever prove sonething is random if they don't know what the mathematical law behind the action is? If the answer is crunched down to numbers 1, 3, 7 and 9 and this is considered random, how do we know 1, 3, 7, and 9 aren't the right answer to the equation according to an overarching mathematical scheme we aren't aware of? So then, in that case, it's not random. Philosophy is overarching; science is the handmaid

How can science prove an action is random or determined? These seem like philosophical categories to me, not related to science and math

Your spine is real. Your brain is real. Real is all your organs. At least rest in your flesh and know the psycho-organic as physical, as "there" for others (even the inanimate) to observe. "I think therefore I am". What a silly notion it is to say nothing is real. This is where Kant causes a lot of stumbling for thos who long for something else..

, if one buys into something like computational theory of mind (long the dominant paradigm in cognitive science) or integrated information theory, then it would seem that information has to come prior to consciousness (else we have a circular explanation) — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed, just as the mother comes before the child. But does it make sense to extend backwards humanity, as a thought experiment, and think of it with no origin except the ever intermediate subject. What information gives us is knowledge, but information is what the medievals called phantams, which really is just imagination. Yes it's not circular or linear

." Nor in it's classical forms can it incorporate information and the successes of information theory — Count Timothy von Icarus

Information reminds me of Kant and his spiritual-metaphysical-psychological-physiological take of space and time and how it interacts with the brain.

If something physical has something to offer consciousness this is its information, or "phenomena". If we are dealing with something so small that it makes no sense to ask it to present anything to our senses, then we are clearly dealing with noumena

It's pretty much done every day, you don't really need philosophy to do that. The fact it pans out and leads to discoveries that we can manipulate and act on sorta implies it doesn't matter what philosophy thinks about — Darkneos

When they are studying things so small we have to invent maths just to understand how small they are (Plank scale) they truly at that point interacting with an abstraction

"The true being of a man is, on the contrary, his act; individuality is real in the deed, and a deed it is which cancels both the aspects of what is 'meant' or 'presumed' to be. In one aspect where what is 'presumed' or 'imagined' takes the form of a passive bodily being, individuality puts itself forward in action as the negative [dynamic] essence which only is so far as it cancels being. Then furthermore the act does away with the inexpressible of what self-conscious individuality really 'means'; in regard to such 'meaning', individuality is endlessly determining and determinable. This false infinite, this endless determining, is abolished in a completed act. The act is [nonetheless] something simply determinate, universal, to be grasped as an abstract, distinctive whole..." Hegel on physiogomy from The phenomenology of Mind 1807

Can you give an example(s) of math being used to describe the physical world without using philosophy? That seems impossible to me. The math only measures. What it measures is up to our apparati. Any measurement implies knowledge of space and time, and hence Kant and the whole mess

If the world wasn't in motion there could not be life. I know there is the block universe idea, but that's more on a metà level for me. Space and time can be understood separately. Space is where motion and the organic thrive. Time is what coordinates the future to the past. Say there is a wormhole: that would mean there are other spacial realities other than ours. If there are other time realities there could be backwards causation and time travel effects. That would be less within our emprical experience though. Even the wormhole is. Again, we know there is motion because there is love and life. Asking whether our senses perceive correctly, however, can indeed be a thorny question. To perceive is to "have before you"

there was already a fine answer to this problem that had been popular for millennia. Aristotle lays it out in the Posterior Analytics and other places. Science deals with per se predications, what is essential to things, not per accidens. This rules out organizing the sciences based on relation (or time/space) because these can involve and infinite number of predications and we cannot consider and infinite number of predicates in a finite time for the same reason that one cannot cross an infinite distance in a finite time at a finite speed. So there can be no science of "biology as studied by men named John" and no "chemistry inside the bodies of cats on the island of Iceland." — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is a biology of humanity since the laws wouldn't exist without that level of intelligence. Without consciousness itself the universe would be a world of a single thing just being, and moving, and being. Pure being. Imagine you lost your eyes. Suddenly youre plunged into darkness, forever. Our organs connect us to pure being, what we would feel is we were stripped of our senses

The small and the great aren't two different things. You can never find the large without moving through the small if you imagine knowledge as feeling around inside an object. It really should work like a machine: take a particle out of the object and it acts thusly; connect it with the object again and it'sphysics must align with that of either the other particles or the whole. Or which is it? How does one define what a "thing" is, as if it is a number?

But this is only with entangled particles which is odd because entanglement is a local — Darkneos

Are you just substituting "local" for quantum and non-local for classical?

Particles can communicate in sinc with each other faster than light. Some speculate worm holes to explain this, which really means we redefine what space means

I think they are saying the noumena is the very small where particles aren't space-bound in the classical sense. The classical is the same classical stuied by humans for thousands of year. As you say, how does this affect the practical realm

Well you have the mind of a doubter. Won't get you far

showed that to be incorrect — Banno

I dont agree that life and desire work in that "logical" way

Gobbledegook, attempting to make an excuse to not be responsible for one's choices. — Banno

All my choices have been right in my view. How about your's to you?

You get what you desire — Banno

Yes

So that if you get poor outcomes, it's becasue that is what you desire — Banno

There is no such thing as a bad outcome. It all depends on how you take it. Every second is a past but the present remains

Pretty shitty reasoning. — Banno

Then you won't get far. The past doesn't exist

He replied, "No, this life is good. It's this body I am tired of — Questioner

Well I'm not going to argue with that

For example, sometimes we have to accept things in our life that suck — Questioner

Life doesn't suck. As the spirit desires so it has